3 ms·
it does get mentioned, and you can have nuclear power without producing plutonium.
by Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
it does get mentioned, and you can have nuclear power without producing plutonium.
- mjfl 4y agobut it's less straighforward and developed. Uranium-based nuclear power produces plutonium. non-uranium based nuclear power is possible but requires technology development that in practice has taken much longer than expected.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y agoPart of that development delay is the deliberate decision of the US (and other countries) to build the types of reactors that can produce weapons grade plutonium - for the express purpose of using it for nuclear weapons. Nuclear reactors are crazy expensive, so if the money comes from people who want Pu, then that's where the R&D goes.
- liftm 4y agoThe rest of hackernews seems to have decided that plutonium is a step on the way to solve the waste problem. What's your take on that?
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y agoWhich waste problem? And how does Pu solve it?
- liftm 4y agoOpen this thread in full, Ctrl+F, "Plutonium", read each post that hits and the one it answers to. That should answer those two questions.
- pfdietz 4y agoOnly by having a nuclear fuel that is itself a proliferation risk (undenatured 235U or 233U).